Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
M/S TIRUPATI BUILDING AND OFFICE PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
M/S CHAUHAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 419/2025 & I.A. 25521/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Mr Gautam Swarup, Adv., Mr Ankur Das, Adv., Ms Sakshi Pandey, Adv., Mr Rudra Deoshthali, Adv.
The absence of a binding maintenance agreement precludes liability for related charges under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming limited court interference with arbitral awards.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to an Arbitral Award - The petition challenges the Arbitral Award, alleging bias and failure to acknowledge a maintenance agreement not executed - Court found no legal obligation to pay maintenance charges in absence of such a binding agreement. (Paras 12, 15, 18)
(B) Limited scope of interference - The Court reiterated that no re-assessment of facts or evidence is permitted under Section 34; the arbitral tribunal's decision should be plausible. (Paras 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an arbitral award dismissing its claim and counterclaims regarding unpaid maintenance and AC charges, amidst disputes over the execution of a maintenance agreement.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the arbitrator's finding that no maintenance agreement was executed and no mandate existed for the respondent to pay CAM or AC charges, dismissing the petition.
Issues: The core issue was the existence and enforcement of a maintenance agreement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a signed maintenance agreement negates any liability for payment of charges, with the Court emphasizing non-interference with the arbitrator's plausible decision.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to challenge an arbitral award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. disputes over maintenance agreement and unpaid charges. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. limited court interference upheld; no maintenance agreement denies liability. (Para 15 , 18) |
1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking to challenge the Arbitral Award dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in DIAC/ 4513D/ 07-22. titled as “Chauhan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Tirupati Buildings and Office Pvt Ltd.”.
2. The facts are that the petitioner is a builder company which goes by the name of Tirupati Buildings and Office Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is also the owner of "Pinnacle Mall., situated in Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. The respondent is a Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent company is engaged in the business of retail of jewellery.
4. The petitioner was the owner of free-hold commercial property, bearing shop no. 3, measuring 670 sq. yards, situated on the Ground Floor of Pinnacle Mall (previously known as Welcome Mall), Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 (“property”)
5. The respondent purchased the said property from the petitioner, pursuant to which a builder-buyer agreement dated 02.06.2015 was executed between the parties and a registered Sale-Deed dated 18.08.2015 was executed by the petitioner with respect to the said property in the favour of the respondent.
6. As per the said Builder Buyer Agreement dated 02.06.2015, the petitioner was to appoint a Maintenance Company and facilitate a separate agreement with the respondent. Relevant paragraphs of the said Agreement dated 02.06.2015 reads as under:
"24. That the Buyer agrees that until such time, the maintenance and upkeep of the said Commercial Complex is ultimately handed over to some Association of the Owners of various units in the said Commercial Complex, the maintenance and provision of various services in the said Commercial Complex shall be done by a said Maintenance Company. The Buyer hereby gives necessary authority to the Builder for nominating Maintenance Company(s), from time to time, on its behalf for maintenance and upkeep of the such commercial Complex. The Buyer further agrees that the said maintenance Company(s) shall also have the option either to carry out the maintenance and upkeep work either on its own in the said Commercial Complex or further assign/subcontract the said work to any other Company(s). The Buyer further agrees to execute the Maintenance Agreement, the draft of which has already been read and understood by the Buyer, with the said Maintenance Company as and when called upon by the Builder.
"25. That the Buyer agrees that for the purposes of maintenance and upkeep of the said Commercial Complex, the Buyer shall pay necessary maintenance charges as may be determined by the said maintenance company. Non-payment of any of the charges within the time specified and for a ..., besides entailing penal interest shall also disentitle the Buyer to the enjoyment of common services in the said Commercial Complex and facilities being provided to the occupiers/visitors of the said Unit, The buyer further agrees to pay a non-refundable one-time Maintenance Security equivalent to three months maintenance charges that shall be refunded at the time of determination of the sale or shall be transferred, with updated amount security, in case the terms of the said unit. The said security shall also be used for adjustment or set off of any outstanding against the maintenance dues and in the case of buyer failing to pay maintenance dues and in the case of buyer failing to pay maintenance charges for a continuous period of three months and also reimburse the complete amount of the maintenance security, the Builder shall be at liberty to re-enter the premises and/or to stop all the services to the unit till such time as the complete payments a
